Services

Golden handshake as Town pay up Risser's contract in full

SWINDON Town paid up Oliver Risser’s contract in full in order to allow the midfielder to leave the County Ground, the Advertiser understands.

A statement released by the club yesterday confirmed Risser’s departure from the Robins, stating that the 32-year-old had left Town “by mutual consent”.

On Saturday, Swindon manager Paolo Di Canio had hinted that the Namibian’s exit could free up funds which could in turn help keep the on-loan trio of Chris Martin, Danny Hollands and John Bostock in Wiltshire.

However, the Adver has learnt that those savings could be minimal after Town stumped up the total amount due on Risser’s deal, which was set to expire in the summer.

Risser yesterday signed on with Aldershot until the end of the season. It is understood that a move to South Africa could potentially be on the cards for the midfielder at the end of the current campaign. Risser’s brother Wilko, who has also had a spell with Aldershot, recently moved to Cape Town side Chippa United.

Meanwhile, Swindon received a massive boost on Monday with the news that Martin had extended his time with the Robins for another 28 days.

The Norwich striker will now be available to Di Canio until Saturday, February 2 and can feature for Town at Crawley on that day if required.

Meanwhile, Danny Hollands could sign an extended loan contract with the Robins today. Like Martin, the Charlton man’s initial stint with Swindon expired on Saturday but Di Canio revealed yesterday that he was close to completing a new deal for the 27-year-old.

“We don’t want to say anything before the paperwork is done, but we are close to agreeing something for Danny,” he told www.swindontownfc.co.uk.

“He has scored a couple of goals and made a big impact, so we want to see what we can do – and perhaps arrange a deal for longer than a month, but we will see what’s going on.”

Elsewhere, Troy Archibald-Henville underwent knee surgery in Italy yesterday in a bid to discover the extent of his cartilage damage.

The defender, signed from Exeter for £200,000 during the summer, could be sidelined for anything between six weeks and six months. The results of the arthroscopic operation, carried out at the Villa Stuart sports rehabilitation centre on the outskirts of Rome, are not yet known but Archibald-Henville took to Twitter to thank fans for their messages of support.

Comments

Unfortunately that's just proved a few of the "I know it all and you know nothing" on this forum completely wrong...

There was no way a player would walk away from a good contract at Swindon without being paid up (in full) anyone thinking otherwise is just delusional...

Good luck to the lad....... Who wouldn't have done the same given the opportunity?

Unfortunately that's just proved a few of the "I know it all and you know nothing" on this forum completely wrong...
There was no way a player would walk away from a good contract at Swindon without being paid up (in full) anyone thinking otherwise is just delusional...
Good luck to the lad....... Who wouldn't have done the same given the opportunity?robstfc

Unfortunately that's just proved a few of the "I know it all and you know nothing" on this forum completely wrong...

There was no way a player would walk away from a good contract at Swindon without being paid up (in full) anyone thinking otherwise is just delusional...

Good luck to the lad....... Who wouldn't have done the same given the opportunity?

Score: 0

DarrenSTFCRomain
6:49am Tue 8 Jan 13

robstfc wrote…

Unfortunately that's just proved a few of the "I know it all and you know nothing" on this forum completely wrong... There was no way a player would walk away from a good contract at Swindon without being paid up (in full) anyone thinking otherwise is just delusional... Good luck to the lad....... Who wouldn't have done the same given the opportunity?

LR

[quote][p][bold]robstfc[/bold] wrote:
Unfortunately that's just proved a few of the "I know it all and you know nothing" on this forum completely wrong... There was no way a player would walk away from a good contract at Swindon without being paid up (in full) anyone thinking otherwise is just delusional... Good luck to the lad....... Who wouldn't have done the same given the opportunity?[/p][/quote]LRDarrenSTFCRomain

robstfc wrote…

Unfortunately that's just proved a few of the "I know it all and you know nothing" on this forum completely wrong... There was no way a player would walk away from a good contract at Swindon without being paid up (in full) anyone thinking otherwise is just delusional... Good luck to the lad....... Who wouldn't have done the same given the opportunity?

LR

Score: 0

peatmoor pirate
7:28am Tue 8 Jan 13

I don't blame Oliver at all but I fail to see how this helps Swindon Town at all? Surely we could have loaned him to Aldershot and got some of his wages back at least?

I don't blame Oliver at all but I fail to see how this helps Swindon Town at all? Surely we could have loaned him to Aldershot and got some of his wages back at least?peatmoor pirate

I don't blame Oliver at all but I fail to see how this helps Swindon Town at all? Surely we could have loaned him to Aldershot and got some of his wages back at least?

Score: 0

stfc2012
7:36am Tue 8 Jan 13

Surprising. That wouldn't be their first offer but with only 6 month ish left its not like they are paying up 2 years. There will be some benefit to the club, even paying what appears to be the full contract value. And my guess would be a trigger in the contract for an extension should town be promoted making us liable for another year. This is common place in football and makes sense. Otherwise he would have left on the cheap and put himself in the shop window before next season. Fair play though, contracts are contracts. This is speculation not fact but stfc would not be worried about keeping him here or sorting a loan if there wasn't something else going on. So it's most likely still good business for all.

Surprising. That wouldn't be their first offer but with only 6 month ish left its not like they are paying up 2 years. There will be some benefit to the club, even paying what appears to be the full contract value. And my guess would be a trigger in the contract for an extension should town be promoted making us liable for another year. This is common place in football and makes sense. Otherwise he would have left on the cheap and put himself in the shop window before next season. Fair play though, contracts are contracts. This is speculation not fact but stfc would not be worried about keeping him here or sorting a loan if there wasn't something else going on. So it's most likely still good business for all.stfc2012

Surprising. That wouldn't be their first offer but with only 6 month ish left its not like they are paying up 2 years. There will be some benefit to the club, even paying what appears to be the full contract value. And my guess would be a trigger in the contract for an extension should town be promoted making us liable for another year. This is common place in football and makes sense. Otherwise he would have left on the cheap and put himself in the shop window before next season. Fair play though, contracts are contracts. This is speculation not fact but stfc would not be worried about keeping him here or sorting a loan if there wasn't something else going on. So it's most likely still good business for all.

Score: 0

Haydonender
7:43am Tue 8 Jan 13

Not sure I understand the point of paying him off then. I'd assumed mutual consent meant some sort of compromise amount had been agreed. As mentioned above, if we'd loaned him to Aldershot and they paid even just 10-20% of his wages sounds like we would have been better off. I'm sure there's a reason but I just don't see it at the moment

Not sure I understand the point of paying him off then. I'd assumed mutual consent meant some sort of compromise amount had been agreed. As mentioned above, if we'd loaned him to Aldershot and they paid even just 10-20% of his wages sounds like we would have been better off. I'm sure there's a reason but I just don't see it at the momentHaydonender

Not sure I understand the point of paying him off then. I'd assumed mutual consent meant some sort of compromise amount had been agreed. As mentioned above, if we'd loaned him to Aldershot and they paid even just 10-20% of his wages sounds like we would have been better off. I'm sure there's a reason but I just don't see it at the moment

Score: 0

SAPFanSTFC
7:47am Tue 8 Jan 13

peatmoor pirate wrote…

I don't blame Oliver at all but I fail to see how this helps Swindon Town at all? Surely we could have loaned him to Aldershot and got some of his wages back at least?

Have to say I thought they'd done a deal to pay up in part so as to release him for lower wages at Aldershot but to pay up in full just doesn't make sense. I understand the comment above but doubt that it would be Risser's choice although I could see how a promotion bonus may be invoked.
.
As you say - loaning him out would have been far simpler and the cheaper option.
.
Very strange...tidier but strange!?

[quote][p][bold]peatmoor pirate[/bold] wrote:
I don't blame Oliver at all but I fail to see how this helps Swindon Town at all? Surely we could have loaned him to Aldershot and got some of his wages back at least?[/p][/quote]Have to say I thought they'd done a deal to pay up in part so as to release him for lower wages at Aldershot but to pay up in full just doesn't make sense. I understand the comment above but doubt that it would be Risser's choice although I could see how a promotion bonus may be invoked.
.
As you say - loaning him out would have been far simpler and the cheaper option.
.
Very strange...tidier but strange!?SAPFanSTFC

peatmoor pirate wrote…

I don't blame Oliver at all but I fail to see how this helps Swindon Town at all? Surely we could have loaned him to Aldershot and got some of his wages back at least?

Have to say I thought they'd done a deal to pay up in part so as to release him for lower wages at Aldershot but to pay up in full just doesn't make sense. I understand the comment above but doubt that it would be Risser's choice although I could see how a promotion bonus may be invoked.
.
As you say - loaning him out would have been far simpler and the cheaper option.
.
Very strange...tidier but strange!?

Score: 0

stfc2012
7:55am Tue 8 Jan 13

A 1 year promotion related contract extension could mean paying out another 150-200k or more. That is the only logical explanation. No voodoo or black magic just simple maths. I'd imagine there are others in the same boat. It's fine for players we want to keep but not for dead wood. Stfc done a good job either way I'd say.

A 1 year promotion related contract extension could mean paying out another 150-200k or more. That is the only logical explanation. No voodoo or black magic just simple maths. I'd imagine there are others in the same boat. It's fine for players we want to keep but not for dead wood. Stfc done a good job either way I'd say.stfc2012

A 1 year promotion related contract extension could mean paying out another 150-200k or more. That is the only logical explanation. No voodoo or black magic just simple maths. I'd imagine there are others in the same boat. It's fine for players we want to keep but not for dead wood. Stfc done a good job either way I'd say.

Score: 0

London Red
8:08am Tue 8 Jan 13

If what Rob says is true then I agree with him that it is still a saving
.
However, I don't see how any extension can be activated as they are normally linked to games played - thus you see players not get picked once they get near that limit
.
Other extensions are at the clubs choice - like Douglas and Caddis
.
One we chose to exercise the other we didn't
.
However, on the face of it this is just plain ridiculous and benefits us in now shape or form and simply makes Risser a rich man!
.
The club really need to explain this one as why are we have statements about having no money, our manager offering to fund loans himself only to have a fringe player paid off in full when the club he joined were going to pay part of his wages via a loan!

If what Rob says is true then I agree with him that it is still a saving
.
However, I don't see how any extension can be activated as they are normally linked to games played - thus you see players not get picked once they get near that limit
.
Other extensions are at the clubs choice - like Douglas and Caddis
.
One we chose to exercise the other we didn't
.
However, on the face of it this is just plain ridiculous and benefits us in now shape or form and simply makes Risser a rich man!
.
The club really need to explain this one as why are we have statements about having no money, our manager offering to fund loans himself only to have a fringe player paid off in full when the club he joined were going to pay part of his wages via a loan!London Red

If what Rob says is true then I agree with him that it is still a saving
.
However, I don't see how any extension can be activated as they are normally linked to games played - thus you see players not get picked once they get near that limit
.
Other extensions are at the clubs choice - like Douglas and Caddis
.
One we chose to exercise the other we didn't
.
However, on the face of it this is just plain ridiculous and benefits us in now shape or form and simply makes Risser a rich man!
.
The club really need to explain this one as why are we have statements about having no money, our manager offering to fund loans himself only to have a fringe player paid off in full when the club he joined were going to pay part of his wages via a loan!

Score: 0

London Red
8:10am Tue 8 Jan 13

Sorry Stfc2012 not rob

Sorry Stfc2012 not robLondon Red

Sorry Stfc2012 not rob

Score: 0

robstfc
8:26am Tue 8 Jan 13

If you were under contract, in any other industry, and not required anymore by your employer, you would expect to be paid out for the full term of your contract.

Even if you had another job to go to, your previous employer wouldn't have the right just to pay you the difference between your current & new salary.... Football isn't any different! Also as others have said already, overall this will save some cash in the longer term, as one example probably all are on a promotion bonus that must be budgeted for... that's one less to pay when you're promoted as Champions in May.

If you were under contract, in any other industry, and not required anymore by your employer, you would expect to be paid out for the full term of your contract.
Even if you had another job to go to, your previous employer wouldn't have the right just to pay you the difference between your current & new salary.... Football isn't any different! Also as others have said already, overall this will save some cash in the longer term, as one example probably all are on a promotion bonus that must be budgeted for... that's one less to pay when you're promoted as Champions in May.robstfc

If you were under contract, in any other industry, and not required anymore by your employer, you would expect to be paid out for the full term of your contract.

Even if you had another job to go to, your previous employer wouldn't have the right just to pay you the difference between your current & new salary.... Football isn't any different! Also as others have said already, overall this will save some cash in the longer term, as one example probably all are on a promotion bonus that must be budgeted for... that's one less to pay when you're promoted as Champions in May.

Score: 0

stfc2012
8:43am Tue 8 Jan 13

Agreed. I don't claim to know the ins and outs of players contracts. They can contain anything. But I think we'll have to trust them that financially there must be a benefit to paying the lad off in full. We can't ask the club to explain every detail of every decision but its nice to get an understanding where possible.

Agreed. I don't claim to know the ins and outs of players contracts. They can contain anything. But I think we'll have to trust them that financially there must be a benefit to paying the lad off in full. We can't ask the club to explain every detail of every decision but its nice to get an understanding where possible.stfc2012

Agreed. I don't claim to know the ins and outs of players contracts. They can contain anything. But I think we'll have to trust them that financially there must be a benefit to paying the lad off in full. We can't ask the club to explain every detail of every decision but its nice to get an understanding where possible.

Score: 0

chalkswindon
8:52am Tue 8 Jan 13

I am guessing here but my thoughts are there is a promotion bonus payable.

In which case Town are going to pull out all the stops and go for it and concern they would be hit with a bonus payout.

I am guessing here but my thoughts are there is a promotion bonus payable.
In which case Town are going to pull out all the stops and go for it and concern they would be hit with a bonus payout.chalkswindon

I am guessing here but my thoughts are there is a promotion bonus payable.

In which case Town are going to pull out all the stops and go for it and concern they would be hit with a bonus payout.

Score: 0

the don69
8:57am Tue 8 Jan 13

Lucky Oliver!we offered him the contract,he tried his best,but just wasn't good enough,so we made the mistake!(or Paolo did)fair enough pay the man!that's life chaps,but one things for sure Paolo's learning from his mistakes!as say saying goes,you pay to learn so learn Fast!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lucky Oliver!we offered him the contract,he tried his best,but just wasn't good enough,so we made the mistake!(or Paolo did)fair enough pay the man!that's life chaps,but one things for sure Paolo's learning from his mistakes!as say saying goes,you pay to learn so learn Fast!!!!!!!!!!!!the don69

Lucky Oliver!we offered him the contract,he tried his best,but just wasn't good enough,so we made the mistake!(or Paolo did)fair enough pay the man!that's life chaps,but one things for sure Paolo's learning from his mistakes!as say saying goes,you pay to learn so learn Fast!!!!!!!!!!!!

Score: 0

PaisleyRed
8:58am Tue 8 Jan 13

Paying him in full comes out of a different pot than the wage budget. Therefore removing his wage giving Swindon more room in the 65% wage cap.

Paying him in full comes out of a different pot than the wage budget. Therefore removing his wage giving Swindon more room in the 65% wage cap.PaisleyRed

Paying him in full comes out of a different pot than the wage budget. Therefore removing his wage giving Swindon more room in the 65% wage cap.

Score: 0

Davidsyrett
9:11am Tue 8 Jan 13

There must be something behind this like bonuses if we get promoted otherwise why pay him off in full? Loaning him out for the remaining part of the season, even if we stumped up 80% of his wages would have at least been a bit of a saving.
As PaisleyRed said, maybe it also frees up some wages as he's no longer on the books, Does that mean the board have put some money in?

There must be something behind this like bonuses if we get promoted otherwise why pay him off in full? Loaning him out for the remaining part of the season, even if we stumped up 80% of his wages would have at least been a bit of a saving.
As PaisleyRed said, maybe it also frees up some wages as he's no longer on the books, Does that mean the board have put some money in?Davidsyrett

There must be something behind this like bonuses if we get promoted otherwise why pay him off in full? Loaning him out for the remaining part of the season, even if we stumped up 80% of his wages would have at least been a bit of a saving.
As PaisleyRed said, maybe it also frees up some wages as he's no longer on the books, Does that mean the board have put some money in?

Score: 0

berswin
9:13am Tue 8 Jan 13

There could also have been something in his contract that he can demand an extention of the contract this summer if he has played a certain number of matches (and that he has passed that number).

And therey STFC paid in full to buy out of this option.

There could also have been something in his contract that he can demand an extention of the contract this summer if he has played a certain number of matches (and that he has passed that number).
And therey STFC paid in full to buy out of this option.berswin

There could also have been something in his contract that he can demand an extention of the contract this summer if he has played a certain number of matches (and that he has passed that number).

And therey STFC paid in full to buy out of this option.

Score: 0

Redhouse Red
9:16am Tue 8 Jan 13

PaisleyRed wrote…

Paying him in full comes out of a different pot than the wage budget. Therefore removing his wage giving Swindon more room in the 65% wage cap.

The likely explanation.

No conspiracy theories

Simple wage reduction bill excercise

[quote][p][bold]PaisleyRed[/bold] wrote:
Paying him in full comes out of a different pot than the wage budget. Therefore removing his wage giving Swindon more room in the 65% wage cap.[/p][/quote]The likely explanation.
No conspiracy theories
Simple wage reduction bill excerciseRedhouse Red

PaisleyRed wrote…

Paying him in full comes out of a different pot than the wage budget. Therefore removing his wage giving Swindon more room in the 65% wage cap.

The likely explanation.

No conspiracy theories

Simple wage reduction bill excercise

Score: 0

STFCman&boy1973
9:31am Tue 8 Jan 13

Having read "Mr Unbelievable" by the great Chris Kamara, he got paid off in full, from Bradford when he was sacked, he got a third of what he was due, I believe, someone will tell me otherwise if Im wrong...

So maybe paid in full, is not completely in full, and better for us...

PaisleyRed surely the same 65%, 35% figures are to be kept to? you cant just make figures up, we're not a bank you know!!!

Having read "Mr Unbelievable" by the great Chris Kamara, he got paid off in full, from Bradford when he was sacked, he got a third of what he was due, I believe, someone will tell me otherwise if Im wrong...
So maybe paid in full, is not completely in full, and better for us...
PaisleyRed surely the same 65%, 35% figures are to be kept to? you cant just make figures up, we're not a bank you know!!!STFCman&boy1973

Having read "Mr Unbelievable" by the great Chris Kamara, he got paid off in full, from Bradford when he was sacked, he got a third of what he was due, I believe, someone will tell me otherwise if Im wrong...

So maybe paid in full, is not completely in full, and better for us...

PaisleyRed surely the same 65%, 35% figures are to be kept to? you cant just make figures up, we're not a bank you know!!!

Score: 0

Wilesy
9:39am Tue 8 Jan 13

Redhouse Red wrote…

PaisleyRed wrote…

Paying him in full comes out of a different pot than the wage budget. Therefore removing his wage giving Swindon more room in the 65% wage cap.

Good news then it sounds like there is active work going on behind the scenes to make things happen and keep the loanees. I guess thanks to Andrew Black, who presumably has released funds to do this.

Could there be any value in doing the same for Rooney, Benson and Cox? Or are we expecting / waiting for a transfer fee? How long to wait for?

[quote][p][bold]Redhouse Red[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]PaisleyRed[/bold] wrote: Paying him in full comes out of a different pot than the wage budget. Therefore removing his wage giving Swindon more room in the 65% wage cap.[/p][/quote]The likely explanation. No conspiracy theories Simple wage reduction bill excercise[/p][/quote]Agree it's just a money shuffle.
Congratulations though to Risser, what a result for him!
Good news then it sounds like there is active work going on behind the scenes to make things happen and keep the loanees. I guess thanks to Andrew Black, who presumably has released funds to do this.
Could there be any value in doing the same for Rooney, Benson and Cox? Or are we expecting / waiting for a transfer fee? How long to wait for?Wilesy

Redhouse Red wrote…

PaisleyRed wrote…

Paying him in full comes out of a different pot than the wage budget. Therefore removing his wage giving Swindon more room in the 65% wage cap.

Good news then it sounds like there is active work going on behind the scenes to make things happen and keep the loanees. I guess thanks to Andrew Black, who presumably has released funds to do this.

Could there be any value in doing the same for Rooney, Benson and Cox? Or are we expecting / waiting for a transfer fee? How long to wait for?

Score: 0

NORTH STAND
9:42am Tue 8 Jan 13

FFS - down Devizes way there's a pond full of large cheeses that can only be seen at night time.... write that one down for tomorrow Sam...

FFS - down Devizes way there's a pond full of large cheeses that can only be seen at night time.... write that one down for tomorrow Sam...NORTH STAND

FFS - down Devizes way there's a pond full of large cheeses that can only be seen at night time.... write that one down for tomorrow Sam...

Score: 0

madterrier
10:08am Tue 8 Jan 13

DarrenSTFCRomain wrote…

robstfc wrote…

Unfortunately that's just proved a few of the "I know it all and you know nothing" on this forum completely wrong... There was no way a player would walk away from a good contract at Swindon without being paid up (in full) anyone thinking otherwise is just delusional... Good luck to the lad....... Who wouldn't have done the same given the opportunity?

LR

Indeed. I could feel vindicated and await the apology, but I doubt it will be forthcoming. Not that I take his lectures seriously.

I would much rather he (Risser, not LR, although you could make a case for that) hadn't been paid off in full. It's not as if he's a loyal, long-standing servant who deserves a testimonial or windfall. It implies that Aldershot were unwilling to pay anything at all towards his wages, or that we were weak in the negotiations.

It also shows that we fans know nothing about weekly wages, details of players contracts, deals and negotiations when it comes to paying loanee wages, paying up contracts, and additional clauses. It's all guesswork.

It's why we would appreciate more information from the club, or investigations from the Adver, as to just where we stand. How much needs to be raised to get Hollands on loan each week, for example?

Hollands to the end of the season, Martin a very-nice-to-have, and Bostock a nice-to-have to the season's end too. Then I would be much more confident about promotion.

[quote][p][bold]DarrenSTFCRomain[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]robstfc[/bold] wrote:
Unfortunately that's just proved a few of the "I know it all and you know nothing" on this forum completely wrong... There was no way a player would walk away from a good contract at Swindon without being paid up (in full) anyone thinking otherwise is just delusional... Good luck to the lad....... Who wouldn't have done the same given the opportunity?[/p][/quote]LR[/p][/quote]Indeed. I could feel vindicated and await the apology, but I doubt it will be forthcoming. Not that I take his lectures seriously.
I would much rather he (Risser, not LR, although you could make a case for that) hadn't been paid off in full. It's not as if he's a loyal, long-standing servant who deserves a testimonial or windfall. It implies that Aldershot were unwilling to pay anything at all towards his wages, or that we were weak in the negotiations.
It also shows that we fans know nothing about weekly wages, details of players contracts, deals and negotiations when it comes to paying loanee wages, paying up contracts, and additional clauses. It's all guesswork.
It's why we would appreciate more information from the club, or investigations from the Adver, as to just where we stand. How much needs to be raised to get Hollands on loan each week, for example?
Hollands to the end of the season, Martin a very-nice-to-have, and Bostock a nice-to-have to the season's end too. Then I would be much more confident about promotion.madterrier

DarrenSTFCRomain wrote…

robstfc wrote…

Unfortunately that's just proved a few of the "I know it all and you know nothing" on this forum completely wrong... There was no way a player would walk away from a good contract at Swindon without being paid up (in full) anyone thinking otherwise is just delusional... Good luck to the lad....... Who wouldn't have done the same given the opportunity?

LR

Indeed. I could feel vindicated and await the apology, but I doubt it will be forthcoming. Not that I take his lectures seriously.

I would much rather he (Risser, not LR, although you could make a case for that) hadn't been paid off in full. It's not as if he's a loyal, long-standing servant who deserves a testimonial or windfall. It implies that Aldershot were unwilling to pay anything at all towards his wages, or that we were weak in the negotiations.

It also shows that we fans know nothing about weekly wages, details of players contracts, deals and negotiations when it comes to paying loanee wages, paying up contracts, and additional clauses. It's all guesswork.

It's why we would appreciate more information from the club, or investigations from the Adver, as to just where we stand. How much needs to be raised to get Hollands on loan each week, for example?

Hollands to the end of the season, Martin a very-nice-to-have, and Bostock a nice-to-have to the season's end too. Then I would be much more confident about promotion.

Score: 0

pdc does wot he wants
10:17am Tue 8 Jan 13

do we ever get any money for our players! whats next pay caddis off aswell. if paolo is on about giving his own money to keep loan players how can we afford to pay off risser. you can kind of see why the board wont give him any more money when half the players pdc has bought we have to give away because no one wants them and after paying 200k for TAH who even when he was fit was lucky to make the bench its no wonder realy. has no doubt made some quallity signings and he gets the best out of players and i wouldnt have anyone else in charge but when he gets a bit of money he is a bit of a child in a sweet shop then after hes spent all his money he actualy finds something worth having and he cant afford it . still love him tho COYR

do we ever get any money for our players! whats next pay caddis off aswell. if paolo is on about giving his own money to keep loan players how can we afford to pay off risser. you can kind of see why the board wont give him any more money when half the players pdc has bought we have to give away because no one wants them and after paying 200k for TAH who even when he was fit was lucky to make the bench its no wonder realy. has no doubt made some quallity signings and he gets the best out of players and i wouldnt have anyone else in charge but when he gets a bit of money he is a bit of a child in a sweet shop then after hes spent all his money he actualy finds something worth having and he cant afford it . still love him tho COYRpdc does wot he wants

do we ever get any money for our players! whats next pay caddis off aswell. if paolo is on about giving his own money to keep loan players how can we afford to pay off risser. you can kind of see why the board wont give him any more money when half the players pdc has bought we have to give away because no one wants them and after paying 200k for TAH who even when he was fit was lucky to make the bench its no wonder realy. has no doubt made some quallity signings and he gets the best out of players and i wouldnt have anyone else in charge but when he gets a bit of money he is a bit of a child in a sweet shop then after hes spent all his money he actualy finds something worth having and he cant afford it . still love him tho COYR

Score: 0

peatmoor pirate
10:28am Tue 8 Jan 13

PaisleyRed wrote…

Paying him in full comes out of a different pot than the wage budget. Therefore removing his wage giving Swindon more room in the 65% wage cap.

If that's true then it explains it but it is bizarre; mind you so are most "accountancy treatments" to my untrained eye.

Either way, good luck to Oliver for the future; in my book, he never did anything than give his best for us.

[quote][p][bold]PaisleyRed[/bold] wrote:
Paying him in full comes out of a different pot than the wage budget. Therefore removing his wage giving Swindon more room in the 65% wage cap.[/p][/quote]If that's true then it explains it but it is bizarre; mind you so are most "accountancy treatments" to my untrained eye.
Either way, good luck to Oliver for the future; in my book, he never did anything than give his best for us.peatmoor pirate

PaisleyRed wrote…

Paying him in full comes out of a different pot than the wage budget. Therefore removing his wage giving Swindon more room in the 65% wage cap.

If that's true then it explains it but it is bizarre; mind you so are most "accountancy treatments" to my untrained eye.

Either way, good luck to Oliver for the future; in my book, he never did anything than give his best for us.

Score: 0

Oxon-Red
10:39am Tue 8 Jan 13

chalkswindon wrote…

I am guessing here but my thoughts are there is a promotion bonus payable. In which case Town are going to pull out all the stops and go for it and concern they would be hit with a bonus payout.

Do players still receive win bonuses ?

Hopefully it would save lots of these in the coming weeks :-)

COYMR

[quote][p][bold]chalkswindon[/bold] wrote:
I am guessing here but my thoughts are there is a promotion bonus payable. In which case Town are going to pull out all the stops and go for it and concern they would be hit with a bonus payout.[/p][/quote]Do players still receive win bonuses ?
Hopefully it would save lots of these in the coming weeks :-)
COYMROxon-Red

chalkswindon wrote…

I am guessing here but my thoughts are there is a promotion bonus payable. In which case Town are going to pull out all the stops and go for it and concern they would be hit with a bonus payout.

Do players still receive win bonuses ?

Hopefully it would save lots of these in the coming weeks :-)

COYMR

Score: 0

Med Red
11:05am Tue 8 Jan 13

Preumably getting rid of Risser plus Paolo's donation of £30k could allow us to sign Hollands on a permanent deal, without going over the 65% wage cap? I'm assuming negotiations are going on behind the scene to sign Hollands on a permanent deal, hence the delay??

Preumably getting rid of Risser plus Paolo's donation of £30k could allow us to sign Hollands on a permanent deal, without going over the 65% wage cap? I'm assuming negotiations are going on behind the scene to sign Hollands on a permanent deal, hence the delay??Med Red

Preumably getting rid of Risser plus Paolo's donation of £30k could allow us to sign Hollands on a permanent deal, without going over the 65% wage cap? I'm assuming negotiations are going on behind the scene to sign Hollands on a permanent deal, hence the delay??

Score: 0

Oi Den!
11:07am Tue 8 Jan 13

peatmoor pirate wrote…

PaisleyRed wrote…

Paying him in full comes out of a different pot than the wage budget. Therefore removing his wage giving Swindon more room in the 65% wage cap.

If that's true then it explains it but it is bizarre; mind you so are most "accountancy treatments" to my untrained eye.

Either way, good luck to Oliver for the future; in my book, he never did anything than give his best for us.

The accounting treatment is neither here nor there. The Football League have said that the 65% limit applies to all player costs, so the payment to Risser doesn't help in that respect.

[quote][p][bold]peatmoor pirate[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]PaisleyRed[/bold] wrote:
Paying him in full comes out of a different pot than the wage budget. Therefore removing his wage giving Swindon more room in the 65% wage cap.[/p][/quote]If that's true then it explains it but it is bizarre; mind you so are most "accountancy treatments" to my untrained eye.
Either way, good luck to Oliver for the future; in my book, he never did anything than give his best for us.[/p][/quote]The accounting treatment is neither here nor there. The Football League have said that the 65% limit applies to all player costs, so the payment to Risser doesn't help in that respect.Oi Den!

peatmoor pirate wrote…

PaisleyRed wrote…

Paying him in full comes out of a different pot than the wage budget. Therefore removing his wage giving Swindon more room in the 65% wage cap.

If that's true then it explains it but it is bizarre; mind you so are most "accountancy treatments" to my untrained eye.

Either way, good luck to Oliver for the future; in my book, he never did anything than give his best for us.

The accounting treatment is neither here nor there. The Football League have said that the 65% limit applies to all player costs, so the payment to Risser doesn't help in that respect.

Score: 0

PaisleyRed
12:59pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Oi Den! wrote…

peatmoor pirate wrote…

PaisleyRed wrote…

Paying him in full comes out of a different pot than the wage budget. Therefore removing his wage giving Swindon more room in the 65% wage cap.

If that's true then it explains it but it is bizarre; mind you so are most "accountancy treatments" to my untrained eye. Either way, good luck to Oliver for the future; in my book, he never did anything than give his best for us.

The accounting treatment is neither here nor there. The Football League have said that the 65% limit applies to all player costs, so the payment to Risser doesn't help in that respect.

That may be true, but the money to pay him off will have been a fresh injection.

[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]peatmoor pirate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PaisleyRed[/bold] wrote: Paying him in full comes out of a different pot than the wage budget. Therefore removing his wage giving Swindon more room in the 65% wage cap.[/p][/quote]If that's true then it explains it but it is bizarre; mind you so are most "accountancy treatments" to my untrained eye. Either way, good luck to Oliver for the future; in my book, he never did anything than give his best for us.[/p][/quote]The accounting treatment is neither here nor there. The Football League have said that the 65% limit applies to all player costs, so the payment to Risser doesn't help in that respect.[/p][/quote]That may be true, but the money to pay him off will have been a fresh injection.PaisleyRed

Oi Den! wrote…

peatmoor pirate wrote…

PaisleyRed wrote…

Paying him in full comes out of a different pot than the wage budget. Therefore removing his wage giving Swindon more room in the 65% wage cap.

If that's true then it explains it but it is bizarre; mind you so are most "accountancy treatments" to my untrained eye. Either way, good luck to Oliver for the future; in my book, he never did anything than give his best for us.

The accounting treatment is neither here nor there. The Football League have said that the 65% limit applies to all player costs, so the payment to Risser doesn't help in that respect.

That may be true, but the money to pay him off will have been a fresh injection.

Score: 0

Oi Den!
1:10pm Tue 8 Jan 13

PaisleyRed wrote…

Oi Den! wrote…

peatmoor pirate wrote…

PaisleyRed wrote…

Paying him in full comes out of a different pot than the wage budget. Therefore removing his wage giving Swindon more room in the 65% wage cap.

If that's true then it explains it but it is bizarre; mind you so are most "accountancy treatments" to my untrained eye. Either way, good luck to Oliver for the future; in my book, he never did anything than give his best for us.

The accounting treatment is neither here nor there. The Football League have said that the 65% limit applies to all player costs, so the payment to Risser doesn't help in that respect.

That may be true, but the money to pay him off will have been a fresh injection.

I think it's more likely that it's come out of the injection by AB that got us out of the embargo. In order to qualify as "turnover" the funding must be introduced by way of acquiring shares. I don't imagine that Black would want to go through the rigmarole of multiple share transactions, so I believe he would have put it all in in one go. But it's just my guess.

[quote][p][bold]PaisleyRed[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]peatmoor pirate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PaisleyRed[/bold] wrote: Paying him in full comes out of a different pot than the wage budget. Therefore removing his wage giving Swindon more room in the 65% wage cap.[/p][/quote]If that's true then it explains it but it is bizarre; mind you so are most "accountancy treatments" to my untrained eye. Either way, good luck to Oliver for the future; in my book, he never did anything than give his best for us.[/p][/quote]The accounting treatment is neither here nor there. The Football League have said that the 65% limit applies to all player costs, so the payment to Risser doesn't help in that respect.[/p][/quote]That may be true, but the money to pay him off will have been a fresh injection.[/p][/quote]I think it's more likely that it's come out of the injection by AB that got us out of the embargo. In order to qualify as "turnover" the funding must be introduced by way of acquiring shares. I don't imagine that Black would want to go through the rigmarole of multiple share transactions, so I believe he would have put it all in in one go. But it's just my guess.Oi Den!

PaisleyRed wrote…

Oi Den! wrote…

peatmoor pirate wrote…

PaisleyRed wrote…

Paying him in full comes out of a different pot than the wage budget. Therefore removing his wage giving Swindon more room in the 65% wage cap.

If that's true then it explains it but it is bizarre; mind you so are most "accountancy treatments" to my untrained eye. Either way, good luck to Oliver for the future; in my book, he never did anything than give his best for us.

The accounting treatment is neither here nor there. The Football League have said that the 65% limit applies to all player costs, so the payment to Risser doesn't help in that respect.

That may be true, but the money to pay him off will have been a fresh injection.

I think it's more likely that it's come out of the injection by AB that got us out of the embargo. In order to qualify as "turnover" the funding must be introduced by way of acquiring shares. I don't imagine that Black would want to go through the rigmarole of multiple share transactions, so I believe he would have put it all in in one go. But it's just my guess.

Score: 0

London Red
9:13pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Terrier you are right I won't apologise when there is nothing to apologise for
.
All I said was it was not logical to pay him of in full and guess what it still isn't!
.
Also I was not alone in that view - yet it is only me you decide to aim a swipe at - "Indeed. I could feel vindicated and await the apology, but I doubt it will be forthcoming"

Terrier you are right I won't apologise when there is nothing to apologise for
.
All I said was it was not logical to pay him of in full and guess what it still isn't!
.
Also I was not alone in that view - yet it is only me you decide to aim a swipe at - "Indeed. I could feel vindicated and await the apology, but I doubt it will be forthcoming"London Red

Terrier you are right I won't apologise when there is nothing to apologise for
.
All I said was it was not logical to pay him of in full and guess what it still isn't!
.
Also I was not alone in that view - yet it is only me you decide to aim a swipe at - "Indeed. I could feel vindicated and await the apology, but I doubt it will be forthcoming"

Score: 0

SimonPrice351
9:59pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Maybe both parties were happy for this to happen?

Oliver was never going to get into the 1st team, and now he's a free agent he can move on.

Also, it gets him off the wage bill and money can be spent elsewhere.

For those who've asked me about Bradley Diallo, he is very interested in Swindon as is Jerome Kisonga a right-back formerly with Lille LOSC.

Two good League 1 players potentially available for £0.

Maybe both parties were happy for this to happen?
Oliver was never going to get into the 1st team, and now he's a free agent he can move on.
Also, it gets him off the wage bill and money can be spent elsewhere.
For those who've asked me about Bradley Diallo, he is very interested in Swindon as is Jerome Kisonga a right-back formerly with Lille LOSC.
Two good League 1 players potentially available for £0.SimonPrice351

Maybe both parties were happy for this to happen?

Oliver was never going to get into the 1st team, and now he's a free agent he can move on.

Also, it gets him off the wage bill and money can be spent elsewhere.

For those who've asked me about Bradley Diallo, he is very interested in Swindon as is Jerome Kisonga a right-back formerly with Lille LOSC.

Two good League 1 players potentially available for £0.

Score: 0

madterrier
10:50pm Tue 8 Jan 13

London Red - you really should apologise for being an Rsehole. You take it upon yourself to argue with, contradict, lecture, belittle and insult your fellow supporters on this site as if they have subscribed for a constant verbal kicking. They haven't.

You really are the most annoying little ****. A typical keyboard warrior - and I won't apologise for that.

London Red - you really should apologise for being an Rsehole. You take it upon yourself to argue with, contradict, lecture, belittle and insult your fellow supporters on this site as if they have subscribed for a constant verbal kicking. They haven't.
You really are the most annoying little ****. A typical keyboard warrior - and I won't apologise for that.madterrier

London Red - you really should apologise for being an Rsehole. You take it upon yourself to argue with, contradict, lecture, belittle and insult your fellow supporters on this site as if they have subscribed for a constant verbal kicking. They haven't.

You really are the most annoying little ****. A typical keyboard warrior - and I won't apologise for that.

Score: 0

London Red
8:31am Wed 9 Jan 13

That's a good self testimonial Terrier could have put it better about you myself!
.
You are one of the most annoying "keyboard warriors" who complains at others for doing exactly what you do - and to me that is the worst thing!

That's a good self testimonial Terrier could have put it better about you myself!
.
You are one of the most annoying "keyboard warriors" who complains at others for doing exactly what you do - and to me that is the worst thing!London Red

That's a good self testimonial Terrier could have put it better about you myself!
.
You are one of the most annoying "keyboard warriors" who complains at others for doing exactly what you do - and to me that is the worst thing!

Score: 0

madterrier
9:32am Wed 9 Jan 13

LR - I don't have any enemies on this board. Whereas you have plenty. I had tried cutting you some slack in recent times, but you never let up. You are the most irritating thing I have ever come across on a forum

LR - I don't have any enemies on this board. Whereas you have plenty. I had tried cutting you some slack in recent times, but you never let up. You are the most irritating thing I have ever come across on a forummadterrier

LR - I don't have any enemies on this board. Whereas you have plenty. I had tried cutting you some slack in recent times, but you never let up. You are the most irritating thing I have ever come across on a forum

Score: 0

madterrier
9:44am Wed 9 Jan 13

London Red wrote…

Terrier you are right I won't apologise when there is nothing to apologise for
.
All I said was it was not logical to pay him of in full and guess what it still isn't!
.
Also I was not alone in that view - yet it is only me you decide to aim a swipe at - "Indeed. I could feel vindicated and await the apology, but I doubt it will be forthcoming"

You addressed my point by asking "why would we pay him in full?". So I told you why. You then addressed me directly again, claiming I had "missed the point". Hence my response directed to you. Then my obvious point about contracts is proved correct but still you argue the toss.

I believe a forum is best used for expressing views and having a bit of fun. You don't have to take it upon yourself to address every single poster and shoot them down, as you seem to enjoy doing.

[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote:
Terrier you are right I won't apologise when there is nothing to apologise for
.
All I said was it was not logical to pay him of in full and guess what it still isn't!
.
Also I was not alone in that view - yet it is only me you decide to aim a swipe at - "Indeed. I could feel vindicated and await the apology, but I doubt it will be forthcoming"[/p][/quote]You addressed my point by asking "why would we pay him in full?". So I told you why. You then addressed me directly again, claiming I had "missed the point". Hence my response directed to you. Then my obvious point about contracts is proved correct but still you argue the toss.
I believe a forum is best used for expressing views and having a bit of fun. You don't have to take it upon yourself to address every single poster and shoot them down, as you seem to enjoy doing.madterrier

London Red wrote…

Terrier you are right I won't apologise when there is nothing to apologise for
.
All I said was it was not logical to pay him of in full and guess what it still isn't!
.
Also I was not alone in that view - yet it is only me you decide to aim a swipe at - "Indeed. I could feel vindicated and await the apology, but I doubt it will be forthcoming"

You addressed my point by asking "why would we pay him in full?". So I told you why. You then addressed me directly again, claiming I had "missed the point". Hence my response directed to you. Then my obvious point about contracts is proved correct but still you argue the toss.

I believe a forum is best used for expressing views and having a bit of fun. You don't have to take it upon yourself to address every single poster and shoot them down, as you seem to enjoy doing.

Score: 0

London Red
8:07pm Wed 9 Jan 13

You've gone easy on me! Quick we may still be able to get you on the New Years honers list for such a noble act
.
At least that last comment confirmed my suspicions!
.
Here's an idea you ignore my posts like I am going to do yours and no one else has to read this type of cr@p
.
Maybe the "enemies" (how you get them on a forum where no one knows each other is beyond me - but hey whatever) could do the same and everyone is happy!

You've gone easy on me! Quick we may still be able to get you on the New Years honers list for such a noble act
.
At least that last comment confirmed my suspicions!
.
Here's an idea you ignore my posts like I am going to do yours and no one else has to read this type of cr@p
.
Maybe the "enemies" (how you get them on a forum where no one knows each other is beyond me - but hey whatever) could do the same and everyone is happy!London Red

You've gone easy on me! Quick we may still be able to get you on the New Years honers list for such a noble act
.
At least that last comment confirmed my suspicions!
.
Here's an idea you ignore my posts like I am going to do yours and no one else has to read this type of cr@p
.
Maybe the "enemies" (how you get them on a forum where no one knows each other is beyond me - but hey whatever) could do the same and everyone is happy!

Score: 0

madterrier
9:24am Fri 11 Jan 13

All seems a bit daft as we both support the same team and enjoy the same forum. Everyone on a forum just needs to respect the fact that other people have different views and it's not a battle about who is right and wrong.

All seems a bit daft as we both support the same team and enjoy the same forum. Everyone on a forum just needs to respect the fact that other people have different views and it's not a battle about who is right and wrong.madterrier

All seems a bit daft as we both support the same team and enjoy the same forum. Everyone on a forum just needs to respect the fact that other people have different views and it's not a battle about who is right and wrong.

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standards Organisation's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about the editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here